Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.

However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.

He also wrote in the "Testimonium Flavianum", "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amaong us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to lovehim, did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he returned to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

| Unfortunately, that passage was either heavily doctored or outright forged by a later Christian author. No observant Jew, as Josephus was, would have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Furthermore, Origen, a later Christian author, said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.

Scholars argue about whether this passage is partially or entirely forged, but almost no one believes it's fully genuine.

Good question! With the 'bible-is-a-science-book' crowd clogging the F.R. airwaves, I fully expect the flat-earthers to make an appearance any day. Not much need for actual science around here anymore.

Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology? How many people were burnt at the stake for disagreeing about Science? How many wars were started over Scientific interpretation?

About 100 million were slaughtered in the century dominated by Darwinism. Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin declined to save himself more controversy. And the wacky race based eugenic theories of the Nazis were tied to some of the evolutionary ideas espoused in Darwin's book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE .

Of all the forerunners of Hitler in GermanyHegel, Comte, Nietzsche, Bernhardi and othersthe most significant was certainly Ernst Haeckel, the atheistic founder of the Monist League and the most vigorous promoter of both biological Darwinism and social Darwinism in continental Europe in the late-nineteenth and early wentieth centuries.

Almost any 19th or even mid-20th century book on human evolution carries illustrations showing the progression: monkey, ape, Hottentot (or African Negro, Australian Aborigine, Tasmanian, etc.) and white European. Few of the early evolutionists were free of such arrogance, not even the politically liberal Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."*Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), p. 127.

You are so right in fact you are evidence yourself no feeling thinking entity could have created such a faithful creature following the edicts of select group of humanoids blest with knowledge far superior to any bible thumping pew warmer. You must have congealed from primordial ooze gathering cells and various parts until you now are ,all just chance, sort of tornado in a junkyardish.

Did you have an actual argument to make, or actual evidence to present?

Apparently not.

But I see that you've been reading too many creationist tracts and not enough biology textbooks, or else you wouldn't be repeating that old creationist fallacy about a "tornado in a junkyard".

This chestnut is so old that I'll just fling some of my old posts about it at you instead of composing yet another one to a "straw man" fallacy I've seen scores of times before:

Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer famous for research on origins of the universe,

...but a lousy biologist...

"claims that believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a Boeing 747."

Good old Hoyle and his straw man. First, no biologist believes that "the first cell originated by chance". Hoyle is grossly misstating the actual mechanism(s) by which the first replicator may have arisen, *and* how the first "cell" likely arose (note: The two are *not* the same thing).

Second, a "tornado in a junkyard" is a truly ridiculous analogy for either evolution (it lacks both replication and selection) *or* abiogenesis (a 747 and a junkyard, by their natures, share very little in common with organic systems and chemical environments -- what is highly improbable in junkyards is not nearly so absurd in organic chemistry).

Plus Hoyle believed that insects might be as intelligent as humans, so I'm not sure if he's really all that good a source.

And:

There's a broad range of creationist alleged "disproofs" of evolution which fall into the category best summed up in Hoyle's term, the "tornado in a junkyard".

These are the arguments which try to claim that it would take some insanely long time for [pick some biological structure/process] to come together "by chance". Hoyle's technique, for example, was to picture a tornado going through a junkyard, randomly rearranging the junk there over and over again, and then ask the reader to ponder how long it would take the tornado to randomly assemble a 747. Admittedly, it would most likely never happen at all.

The creationists then claim to have shown how ridiculous it is to believe that evolution could "randomly" produce anything complex, either.

The problem with such analogies, however, is that this is *not* an accurate picture of how evolution works. Yes, evolution does include a component of random change. But that's not the *only* process at work. Random variation (and not-so-random variation) is only one factor at work -- the other two are reproduction and selection. Without all three present, evolution goes nowhere (see below). *With* all three present, evolution can take off and do some very surprising things.

Some of the creationist "tornado in a junkyard" arguments involved the difficulty of randomly producing a particular string of text. This is the "monkeys on typewriters" variation, named after the famous old saying that if you had enough monkeys randomly smacking away on typewriters long enough, you could produce all the works of Shakespeare. True enough, but as the creationists rightly point out, for even a relatively short phrase the amount of time you'd have to wait for the monkeys to get lucky would likely exceed the expected lifespan of the universe itself.

And again, creationists use this to argue that evolutionary formation of something even more complex, say, a housecat is more unlikely than infinity squared.

But again, evolution is *not* just one random rearrangement after another, as are the tornado and the monkey examples.

And:

He said the odds that a cell is formed by chance is equal to the odds that a tornado going through a junkyard would create a working 747 with all instruments working.

Yes he did, and the gross inappropriateness of that analogy to actual evolutionary processes has been explained again and again now. Not that creationists ever learn the lesson...

And:

Yea...toronao through junkyard yields 747..evolution.

The flaws in that grossly invalid analogy have been explained *countless* times. So what's your excuse for still using it?

Hint: Evolutionary processes require three things -- 1) variation, 2) reproduction, 3) selection. Surely even you should be able to identify which TWO of those three are missing entirely from the childish "tornado in a junkyard" example, making it a vastly inappropriate model for evolution.

Sheesh.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- anti-evolutionists should really learn *something* about evolution, and about science in general, before they attempt to critique it.

The fact that creationists are still using this stupid analogy after all these years indicates that they're highly uneducated at best, and disgustingly disingenuous at worst. Which is it in your case?

And:

If you have a bunch of bricks to build a house and you leave them on the ground the odds of them forming a house by chance are zero. If you drop them by accident or randomly throw them down it won't work either.

And evolution wouldn't work either if it actually resembled your example. But it doesn't.

Unlike these "tornado in a junkyard" attempts to understand (or misrepresent, e.g. Hoyle) evolution, evolution is *not* just repeated random variation. As you correctly realize, that wouldn't "get anywhere" useful.

Instead, evolution is the process which occurs when *three* conditions are in play (if any one or more of them are missing, evolution will not take place):

1. Replication (or "reproduction" if you prefer).

2. Variation (more specifically, inheritable variation).

3. Selection (that is, some process which "weeds out" some variations while "favoring" others). In nature, this generally takes the form of the fact that not all individuals in a population will manage to survive -- or if they do, not all will manage to reproduce -- even then, some will manage to reproduce more often than others. Statistically, the individuals which are better equipped, genetically (e.g. are faster, more cunning, better able to fly, etc.) will have the edge when it comes to surviving and reproducing.

When these three factors are in place (as they are rather inevitably whenever life itself exists), evolution will take place, and will in the long run collect the "better" variations (i.e. mutations) while quickly weeding out the "bad" ones. Over time, vast numbers of useful mutations will accumulate.

This is not just a theoretical assertion -- it can be observed occuring in living things, and also when the process is implemented in computer programs, etc., rapid improvement (including increasing complexity) results.

In short, evolution *works* as a process, even if it may seem counterintuitive at first.

For a quick (albeit admittedly trivial) example of the enormous power of evolutionary processes when compared to "pure" random chance, see this old post of mine.

For more impressive examples, do a Google search on "genetic algorithms", "genetic programming", and "evolutionary computing". For years now people have been harnessing the power of evolutionary processes in order to solve problems that they themselves did not know how to solve (which rules out "intelligent design" as an accidental cause), just by turning evolution loose on it to "search" for a solution. The solutions that evolution comes up with in those cases are often beautiful, highly complex, and "brilliant". In some cases no one can figure out *how* the solution which evolution produced works, because it is too complex or too "unconventional", but work it does.

And:

To randomly create even the simplest life form would be, as some say, like having a tornado go through a junkyard and produce a 747. Not in a billion billion billion years. Forget it, no way, nada, yah right.

If evolutionary processes -- or biological processes in general -- were anything like "a tornado in a junkyard", you might have a valid point. But since they aren't, you don't. Hoyle's goofy "tornado making a 747" analogy was recognized as fatally flawed way back when he made it. What excuse to creationists have for still using it?

Hint: Evolutionary change is the result of the interplay of *three* separate processes. (Extra credit for the creationists: Do you understand even the *basics* of evolution well enough to name them, or are you entirely ignorant of the fundamentals of the field you presume to "lecture" other people about?) Hoyle's cartoonish example models only *one* of them, and leaves out the other two critical components of evolution, and as such is a completely invalid analogy for what evolution can actually do. One has to wonder whether he blew his example out of gross ignorance of biological processes, or through intentional dishonesty, but neither option inspires confidence. The same question arises about the myriad of creationists who repeat his invalid example. For example, what's *your* excuse for presenting such a childishly incorrect argument, which in no way constitutes a valid analogy for evolutionary processes? Are you presenting dishonest sophistry that you *know* is invalid and misleading? Or are you presenting it because you're so ignorant of even the very simplest basics of evolutionary processes that you actually thought that wind through a junkyard was in any way a conceptually accurate model of how evolution actually proceeds?

And:

It's people like this and atheistic fools like you that want us to believe life on his planet evolved by random chance. Believing that is is the equivalent of believing a tornado could sweep across a junkyard an assemble a 747.

No it isn't, because Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" analogy is 100% flawed as a model of evolutionary processes. No wonder you're so fond of it. Here, try to learn something.

In short, why don't you anti-evolution folks try to think for yourselves for a change instead of parroting the usual creationist fallacies -- or at least come up with some new material?

You are right science can account for some things. Science has yet to devise a method to detect other dimensions or realms of exsistence. So when you die are you going to take some scientists word that there is no life after death, and chance coming face to face with an indignant creator who you have spent your life ignoring because some intelectual in a lab coat said he couldnt possibly exist? Even the most reckless gambler hedges his bets.

Actually most Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations. For eaxmple, , "He was the Christ...". However, "For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks." is generally considered authentic. Even without the interpolations the passage corraborates important information about Jesus that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wise and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders.

Good idea! Do science in the lab Monday-Friday. Go to church on Sunday. Don't pretend your chemistry book is a morals guide. Don't pretend your bible is a science book. Works for me.

If you want to use your bible as a science book, you have to allow for a variety of hypotheses, including the hypothesis that not all of the bible is literally true. You can make a very persuasive argument for this one!

You are right science can account for some things. Science has yet to devise a method to detect other dimensions or realms of exsistence. So when you die are you going to take some scientists word that there is no life after death... ...you have spent your life ignoring because some intelectual in a lab coat said he couldnt possibly exist? Even the most reckless gambler hedges his bets.

Bravo! Claptrap, Good Point!

OH & BTW you have all the votes to hit carriage return every line when you wish!!

...says the guy who thinks that there's a valid scientific argument in his following ramble:

Besides fossil evidence is tripe stalagtites can form in as little time as fourteen years and petrify. So literally anything could be a fossil.

Ooookay...

What can I say -- you're apparently the local expert on "junk science" and MNRs.

But just for fun, perhaps you might want to answer the following questions about your, um, amazing claim.

1. What in the hell is a "stalagtite"?

2. Did you perhaps mean "stalactite" or "stalagmite"?

3. If so, which one?

4. Do you even know the difference?

5. Do you even think it matters whether you know or not before you spout off about geology and what its alleged implications for evolutionary biology might be?

6. Are you aware that the only kind of "fast-growing" stalactites are of the gypsum or concrete/mortar type, and are easily distinguished from the more common calcium carbonate stalactites, which are indeed very slow growing?

7. Are you aware that the creationists who spout the "fast stalactites" garbage are lying to you when they pretend that there's no difference between gypsum stalactites and calcium carbonate stalactites?

8. Do you care that they're lying to you in order to dishonestly propagandize in favor of creationism?

9. Are you somehow under the impression that gypsum or mortar stalactites have anything whatsoever to do with the processes of fossilization?

10. Are you really that enormously ignorant?

11. Are you under the bizarre impression that the speed of fossilization is somehow relevant to the *age* of the fossil?

12. Why?!? Not even the creationist pamphlet-writers are dense enough to try to make that claim. When they write about fast-growing stalactites, they do it in order to try to (fallaciously and disingenuously) attack age-of-earth evidence, not fossils.

13. Are you so unfamiliar with the science you attempt to hand-wave away that you're entirely unaware of the many ways in which the age of fossils are independently determined and cross-checked?

14. Even if, as you incorrectly allege, "anything could be a fossil", how would this actually support your broad claim that "fossil evidence is tripe"? Wouldn't the morphology of the fossils be useful evidence even if "anything could be a fossil"?

15. Are you so arrogant that you're proud to snottily denounce the sciene without actually knowing the first thing about it?

16. How did you turn out that way?

17. Was your screen name consciously chosen for its aptness to the content of your posts, or is that just a fortuitous happenstance?

So when you die are you going to take some scientists word that there is no life after death, and chance coming face to face with an indignant creator who you have spent your life ignoring because some intelectual in a lab coat said he couldnt possibly exist?

Good point -- so how do you plan to please Odin, Shiva, and Quetzelcotl, just in case? You don't dare risk coming face to face with an indignant Huitzilopochtli who you have spent your life ignoring, so you'd better get cracking on pleasing him in every way. Time's a-wasting.

If not all of the Bible is true then it should be disreguarded. Yet I have seen wonderful things happen when I started doing what is right by Gods standards. Evil things happened when I was following standards like the nutty "right winged professor " represents What he suggests is to dishonor God and make himself a god and in turn influence others to become like him arrogant and decietful.

There were over 500 witnesses to Jesus after his crucifixion. His own brother didnt beleive yet later became a believer and was willing to die for that belief. There is more evidence for a real Jesus than for any evolutionary process. His simple yet profound words are so unique yet only a few will ever really believe and stand up for their faith, just as he said. None of the deities you have mentioned have that reach. I made my journey by adopting a disabled child from SE Asia after seeing hell first hand I can never retun to your world of mocking superority and smug complacency, and you would not envy me my world but Im not counting on just the here and now for happiness sadly thats all you have.

These are all many names for the one infinite beyond the absolute, and mans attempt to comprehend it. Ostensibly your gang has names too, they are called cosmology, evolution, et-al. Your gang wants to replace the names of Shiva and the rest these with your names.

Okay stalagmite is a mound of deposited minerals. Stalactite forms in a downward direction. In Colorado there is a place called Cave of the Winds I have been there many times and they can form quite rapidly, blocking out whole sections of open areas. The abundance or redeposited minerals should suggest the transitory nature of geological formations, if earthquakes dont do it for you.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.